{"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/643971"], "description"=>"<p>(A) Two target song spectrograms (frequency range 500 Hz to 8 kHz), and the response of an example field L recording site to those two songs (10 trials each) as rasters. There is one set of rasters at each of the four azimuths for the two target songs; the effects of changing the location are minimal. (B) The same, with the addition of a song-shaped noise masker (whose spectrogram is shown below those of the targets), played from −90° for all target locations, at the same RMS amplitude as the target (represented by the black box with an “M” on it). The masker sound affects the responses at all target locations, but the effect is stronger (primarily as deleted spikes) when the target is at −90°. (C) Discrimination performance of the same example site. Discrimination of clean targets is reliable for all target locations. However, masked performance is worse when the target is ipsilateral to the site than when it is contralateral. (D) The effect of adding a masker (black bars: means ± 1 SEM, gray lines: individual sites, <i>n</i> = 33). The spatial sensitivity is much higher for the masked stimuli, succinctly demonstrating that the addition of masker to a stimulus increases the dependence of performance on location. (E) Average spike rates in response to clean songs (black line: mean ± 1 SEM, gray lines: individual sites).</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["sounds", "spatial"], "article_id"=>314450, "categories"=>["Neuroscience"], "users"=>["Ross K. Maddox", "Cyrus P. Billimoria", "Ben P. Perrone", "Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham", "Kamal Sen"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001319.g001", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>2, "page_views"=>5, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Masking_sounds_increase_spatial_sensitivity_/314450", "title"=>"Masking sounds increase spatial sensitivity.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>1, "published_date"=>"2013-02-20 05:40:06"}

{"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/644038"], "description"=>"<p>(A) The performances of four example sites that vary widely. The performance is color-coded and percent correct value shown for each spatial configuration. (B) The performances of all neurons at all spatial configurations as dots. The translucent gray shows the “upper envelope”—that is, the surface defined by the best performance across neural sites for each spatial configuration. The best-performing six sites are color-coded so that all the dots of one color show performance for that site for all tested configurations. The order of the colored dots changes across spatial configurations, showing that the diversity of the spatial performance patterns is important for allowing good performance across all spatial configurations. The results shown are for the responses at an SNR of −6 dB; that is, the target sound had half the amplitude of the masker. Recordings were made in both hemispheres and data shown here use the electrode hemisphere as a reference, rather than an absolute left/right coordinate system.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["patterns", "neural"], "article_id"=>314530, "categories"=>["Neuroscience"], "users"=>["Ross K. Maddox", "Cyrus P. Billimoria", "Ben P. Perrone", "Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham", "Kamal Sen"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001319.g002", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>0, "page_views"=>8, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Spatial_performance_patterns_are_diverse_across_neural_recording_sites_/314530", "title"=>"Spatial performance patterns are diverse across neural recording sites.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>1, "published_date"=>"2013-02-20 05:40:32"}

{"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/644146"], "description"=>"<p>(A) The upper envelope and (B) the across-site mean performance are shown as grids (with performance color-coded and percent correct value shown in each box) for clean targets and at each SNR (clean, +6 dB, 0 dB, and −6 dB from top to bottom). The upper envelope performance shares its worst-performing spatial configuration with the mean, but is (by necessity) higher than the mean at all points. In fact, the upper envelope performance is at or very near ceiling for the higher two SNRs. At each SNR, the mean varies smoothly as a function of both target and masker location. For both the upper envelope and the mean, the lowest performance is when the target is ipsilateral and the masker is contralateral, and the highest performance is in the complementary configuration. Performance also improves with increasing SNR. (C) Performance increases as a function of spatial separation when considering the subset of spatial configurations in which the target source is more contralateral than or colocated with the masker (in the grids above, the lower right triangle, including the diagonal). Mean performances are shown as markers (upward triangles, circles, and downward triangles for +6, 0, and −6 dB SNR, respectively). Linear regression fits at each SNR are shown as gray lines.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["measures"], "article_id"=>314638, "categories"=>["Neuroscience"], "users"=>["Ross K. Maddox", "Cyrus P. Billimoria", "Ben P. Perrone", "Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham", "Kamal Sen"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001319.g003", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>2, "page_views"=>7, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Population_measures_of_response_patterns_/314638", "title"=>"Population measures of response patterns.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>1, "published_date"=>"2013-02-20 05:41:05"}

{"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/644224"], "description"=>"<p>For three spatial configurations (left to right: target ipsilateral, masker contralateral; target front, masker front; target contralateral, masker ipsilateral), (A) clean target rate, (B) masked rate, and (C) the difference between masked and clean rates are shown, averaged across all sites. Red peaks show where the masker added spikes, and blue depths show masker subtractions. The large initial peaks have been clipped to increase the dynamic range of the rates that follow. (D) Using these rates, we modeled spike trains that had additions and subtractions, subtractions only, or additions only (“modeled,” which includes additions and subtractions, “sub-only,” and “add-only,” respectively). We calculated percents correct for these generated spike trains for each unit and plotted them against the actual masked performance. (E) The subtractions-only performance for each site (blue circles) and the centroid (black cross, branches are 1 SEM in each direction). Centroids are close to the diagonal, indicating similar subtractions-only and masked performances. (F) Additions-only performances, in the same manner as (E). Centroids are far from the diagonal, indicating a smaller detrimental effect on performance from spike additions. (G) The average (±1 SEM) performance. Additions-only performance does not differ significantly from clean performance for any configuration. Subtractions-only performance is significantly worse than clean performance. As the target moves from ipsilateral to contralateral (and the masker oppositely), subtractions account for an increasing proportion of the masking performance hit, completely accounting for it in the target contralateral, masker ipsilateral configuration. Gray brackets indicate significant differences of <i>p</i><.05.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["additions", "subtractions"], "article_id"=>314711, "categories"=>["Neuroscience"], "users"=>["Ross K. Maddox", "Cyrus P. Billimoria", "Ben P. Perrone", "Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham", "Kamal Sen"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001319.g004", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>0, "page_views"=>6, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Spike_additions_and_subtractions_affect_performance_differently_/314711", "title"=>"Spike additions and subtractions affect performance differently.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>1, "published_date"=>"2013-02-20 05:41:29"}